AI
Monday, January 09, 2023 3:05:05 PM
12yearplan, You're right. White nationalism is the move. The threat of color
extinction is the fear. There is too much evidence to credibly deny it.
"The threat is the most plausible explanation for the movement right and all it's extreme expressions
And, the corresponding perceived loss of power
Most votes wins elections
The trend is not ur Righties friend.
So cheat and blow up stuff. "
One distinction between writers as Brooks and Parry, for me, is that Brooks often wavers. Waffles, ouch, parries. Parry doesn't parry (yep, corny), he goes to the core. Parry tells us there ..
Indeed, Brooks seems genuinely baffled as to why the Right is determined to kill the measure, writing: “conservatives are not supposed to take a static, protectionist view of economics. They’re not supposed to believe that growth can be created or even preserved if government protects favored groups from competition.
P - “Conservatives are supposed to believe in the logic of capitalism; ...
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170892917
Brooks sure sounds like he was baffled there. It could also be that he knew why his conservatives were moving to the right, yet just couldn't bring himself to put the hard truth down. Parry just says it:
But “the receding roar of a white America” is, in a sense, what we have been hearing for most of the nation’s history, as whites have engaged in genocide against Native Americans and kept African-Americans first in bondage and then in a de facto second-class citizenship. One could add to this ugly picture the discriminatory treatment toward Hispanics along the southern border and against Asian-Americans mostly in the West.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170892917
That's what i like about Parry.
In case you missed -- What’s New About the New Authoritarianism?
[...]
Three recent books considering 21st-century political systems arrive at very different answers to these questions. One demonstrates how today’s autocrats prefer manipulating their citizens to outright repression; it may be the most sophisticated and robust account of the new alternatives to democracy. Another identifies mistakes that liberal democracies keep making with regard to the new autocrats. And the last points to a supposed factor in the decline of democracy—increasingly diverse societies and the difficulties of dealing with them—without arguing that democracies are necessarily doomed.
[...]
There is a widespread sense that today’s autocracies differ from previous dictatorships in that rulers ruthlessly concentrate power but do not officially abolish institutions such as parliaments. Nor do they actually disavow democracy, for that matter. Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman’s Spin Dictators substantiates this intuition with data. Guriev and Treisman, social scientists who specialize in Russia, distinguish between “fear dictatorships,” a more traditional model relying on terror to enforce ideological conformity, and “spin dictatorships,” a newer kind that refrain from widespread repression but that ensure a change of power is nearly impossible.
IMAGE
Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century, Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman, Princeton University Press, 360 pp., $29.95, April 2022
Traditional autocracy has not vanished, and Guriev and Treisman concede that its most important example—China—has just “digitized the old fear-based model.” But a trend has emerged: Based on their empirical model, the authors find that fear dictatorships decreased from 60 percent of the total cohort of autocratic leaders in the 1970s to less than 10 percent in the period since 2000; meanwhile, the proportion of spin dictatorships increased from 13 to 53 percent.
Spin dictators focus on keeping people docile or distracted, often through sophisticated public relations, but they do not demand constant loyalty. Election victories with 99 percent of the vote provoke anger; spin dictators ensure the triumph is overwhelming but not obviously proof of fraud while still demoralizing the opposition. Guriev and Treisman write that the pioneer of this new form of authoritarianism was Singapore, where Lee Kuan Yew, who served as prime minister from 1959 to 1990, kept up a facade of democracy through regular elections. Rather than arresting opposition figures for dissenting, he would have them sued for libel—bankrupting them—and then benefit from a law barring bankrupt citizens from seeking office.
If traditional autocrats relied on the illusion of consent, today’s autocrats wish to create consent to the construction of illusions—whether about the persistence of real democracy, the leader’s infinite competence, or making the country great again. Guriev and Treisman write that many of these leaders start from a position of genuine popularity—Russian President Vladimir Putin is an example—and then slowly transform institutions such that they cannot lose power if circumstances change. This new autocratic playbook is easily copied across borders, the authors argue, not least because there is no unifying ideology. (Lee Kuan Yew, for instance, called himself a pragmatist.)
[...]
Putin’s conduct during the war in Ukraine complicates other aspects of Guriev and Treisman’s account of the new authoritarianism. This spring, the Russian leader shuttered the last remaining—though already marginalized—independent news outlets in Russia and is working to make society conform to his ideological outlook. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan undertook a similar descent from simulated democracy toward outright repression in Turkey after the 2016 coup attempt against his government. It seems that when circumstances change and when the international context permits, today’s autocrats are ready to fall back on fear.
[...]
Gideon Rachman’s journalistic The Age of the Strongman nicely complements Guriev and Treisman’s social science-driven account. As the title suggests, Rachman, a columnist at the Financial Times, holds that the world has entered a new era. Putin provided the archetype for the strongman, and Xi Jinping’s elevation to head of the Chinese Communist Party in 2012 confirmed the trend. Importantly, the model originated outside the West, and it is not confined to authoritarian regimes: Trump and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson are also instances of strongman politics, Rachman writes.
[...]
German playwright Bertolt Brecht famously wrote, “Unhappy the land that needs heroes.” But woe also to countries in which political analysis has been reduced to guesswork about the mind of a single person. Is there a pattern to explain their rise? Rachman goes through a familiar list, starting with the losers of globalization, but it’s doubtful how much one can generalize about this. Strongmen may look similar in different countries, but it does not follow that the causes of their success must be identical. In fact, Rachman’s own analyses of national contexts show that strongmen’s career paths are much more specific than glib pronouncements about a global wave of populism would suggest.
Rachman does identify one particularly pernicious strategy that strongmen have used in large multiethnic democracies such as the United States: the fear that the “real people”—a euphemism for the white majority—are being replaced by threatening “others.” And so the logic goes, only a strong leader can protect citizens from being “replaced.” Although today’s aspiring autocrats might not use most of the repertoire of 20th-century fear dictators, stoking panic can still work for them.
White supremacists and neo-Nazis chant at counter-protesters after marching through the University of Virginia campus in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Aug. 11, 2017. Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
Great replacement theory—shorthand for the conspiracy theory that conjures up enemies of the nation who seek to substitute “others” for the “real people”—has become central to far-right rhetoric in many countries. That makes carefully framing any discussion of demographics all the more important. In his new book, titled The Great Experiment, the prominent political scientist Yascha Mounk echoes former U.S. President Barack Obama in labeling multiethnic democracy an “experiment,” phrasing that suggests someone is pulling the strings in the first place. In any case, Mounk is very worried that the experiment might go wrong. He suggests that humans are tribal by nature—or, as he puts it, “groupish.” Diverse countries might end up with anarchy, brutal domination by one group, or an uneasy modus vivendi, where power is divided among factions, the author argues.
---
[Funny with the republican rights "the “Great Replacement" Theory", it's always black that get killed, not the way around,"attempting to replace white Americans with non-white people through immigration, interracial marriage and eventually violence."
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=168864665
White Nationalism’s Deep American Roots
"Human Zoos: America's Forgotten History of Scientific Racism
What the Nazis “found exciting about the American model didn’t involve just eugenics,” observes James Q. Whitman, a professor at Yale Law School and the author of Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (2017). “It also involved the systematic degradation of Jim Crow, of American deprivation of basic rights of citizenship like voting.” Nazi lawyers carefully studied how the United States, despite its pretense of equal citizenship, had effectively denied that status .. http://aeon.co/ideas/why-the-nazis-studied-american-race-laws-for-inspiration .. to those who were not white. They looked at Supreme Court decisions that withheld full citizenship rights from nonwhite subjects in U.S. colonial territories. They examined cases that drew, as Thind’s had, arbitrary but hard lines around who could be considered “white.”
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152073813]
---
Quite a lot more there : https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=169607886
One last to have a drink with: Repetitious assholes drive the fear. Emphasis
on repetition. Emphasis on assholes. One near the top of the list is the USA:
restripe, Tucker Carlson!*&*&$$. No wonder you're gone. Tucker Carlson HUMILIATES Himself As Grift Unravels On-Air
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170749904
extinction is the fear. There is too much evidence to credibly deny it.
"The threat is the most plausible explanation for the movement right and all it's extreme expressions
And, the corresponding perceived loss of power
Most votes wins elections
The trend is not ur Righties friend.
So cheat and blow up stuff. "
One distinction between writers as Brooks and Parry, for me, is that Brooks often wavers. Waffles, ouch, parries. Parry doesn't parry (yep, corny), he goes to the core. Parry tells us there ..
Indeed, Brooks seems genuinely baffled as to why the Right is determined to kill the measure, writing: “conservatives are not supposed to take a static, protectionist view of economics. They’re not supposed to believe that growth can be created or even preserved if government protects favored groups from competition.
P - “Conservatives are supposed to believe in the logic of capitalism; ...
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170892917
Brooks sure sounds like he was baffled there. It could also be that he knew why his conservatives were moving to the right, yet just couldn't bring himself to put the hard truth down. Parry just says it:
But “the receding roar of a white America” is, in a sense, what we have been hearing for most of the nation’s history, as whites have engaged in genocide against Native Americans and kept African-Americans first in bondage and then in a de facto second-class citizenship. One could add to this ugly picture the discriminatory treatment toward Hispanics along the southern border and against Asian-Americans mostly in the West.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170892917
That's what i like about Parry.
In case you missed -- What’s New About the New Authoritarianism?
[...]
Three recent books considering 21st-century political systems arrive at very different answers to these questions. One demonstrates how today’s autocrats prefer manipulating their citizens to outright repression; it may be the most sophisticated and robust account of the new alternatives to democracy. Another identifies mistakes that liberal democracies keep making with regard to the new autocrats. And the last points to a supposed factor in the decline of democracy—increasingly diverse societies and the difficulties of dealing with them—without arguing that democracies are necessarily doomed.
[...]
There is a widespread sense that today’s autocracies differ from previous dictatorships in that rulers ruthlessly concentrate power but do not officially abolish institutions such as parliaments. Nor do they actually disavow democracy, for that matter. Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman’s Spin Dictators substantiates this intuition with data. Guriev and Treisman, social scientists who specialize in Russia, distinguish between “fear dictatorships,” a more traditional model relying on terror to enforce ideological conformity, and “spin dictatorships,” a newer kind that refrain from widespread repression but that ensure a change of power is nearly impossible.
IMAGE
Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century, Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman, Princeton University Press, 360 pp., $29.95, April 2022
Traditional autocracy has not vanished, and Guriev and Treisman concede that its most important example—China—has just “digitized the old fear-based model.” But a trend has emerged: Based on their empirical model, the authors find that fear dictatorships decreased from 60 percent of the total cohort of autocratic leaders in the 1970s to less than 10 percent in the period since 2000; meanwhile, the proportion of spin dictatorships increased from 13 to 53 percent.
Spin dictators focus on keeping people docile or distracted, often through sophisticated public relations, but they do not demand constant loyalty. Election victories with 99 percent of the vote provoke anger; spin dictators ensure the triumph is overwhelming but not obviously proof of fraud while still demoralizing the opposition. Guriev and Treisman write that the pioneer of this new form of authoritarianism was Singapore, where Lee Kuan Yew, who served as prime minister from 1959 to 1990, kept up a facade of democracy through regular elections. Rather than arresting opposition figures for dissenting, he would have them sued for libel—bankrupting them—and then benefit from a law barring bankrupt citizens from seeking office.
If traditional autocrats relied on the illusion of consent, today’s autocrats wish to create consent to the construction of illusions—whether about the persistence of real democracy, the leader’s infinite competence, or making the country great again. Guriev and Treisman write that many of these leaders start from a position of genuine popularity—Russian President Vladimir Putin is an example—and then slowly transform institutions such that they cannot lose power if circumstances change. This new autocratic playbook is easily copied across borders, the authors argue, not least because there is no unifying ideology. (Lee Kuan Yew, for instance, called himself a pragmatist.)
[...]
Putin’s conduct during the war in Ukraine complicates other aspects of Guriev and Treisman’s account of the new authoritarianism. This spring, the Russian leader shuttered the last remaining—though already marginalized—independent news outlets in Russia and is working to make society conform to his ideological outlook. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan undertook a similar descent from simulated democracy toward outright repression in Turkey after the 2016 coup attempt against his government. It seems that when circumstances change and when the international context permits, today’s autocrats are ready to fall back on fear.
[...]
Gideon Rachman’s journalistic The Age of the Strongman nicely complements Guriev and Treisman’s social science-driven account. As the title suggests, Rachman, a columnist at the Financial Times, holds that the world has entered a new era. Putin provided the archetype for the strongman, and Xi Jinping’s elevation to head of the Chinese Communist Party in 2012 confirmed the trend. Importantly, the model originated outside the West, and it is not confined to authoritarian regimes: Trump and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson are also instances of strongman politics, Rachman writes.
[...]
German playwright Bertolt Brecht famously wrote, “Unhappy the land that needs heroes.” But woe also to countries in which political analysis has been reduced to guesswork about the mind of a single person. Is there a pattern to explain their rise? Rachman goes through a familiar list, starting with the losers of globalization, but it’s doubtful how much one can generalize about this. Strongmen may look similar in different countries, but it does not follow that the causes of their success must be identical. In fact, Rachman’s own analyses of national contexts show that strongmen’s career paths are much more specific than glib pronouncements about a global wave of populism would suggest.
Rachman does identify one particularly pernicious strategy that strongmen have used in large multiethnic democracies such as the United States: the fear that the “real people”—a euphemism for the white majority—are being replaced by threatening “others.” And so the logic goes, only a strong leader can protect citizens from being “replaced.” Although today’s aspiring autocrats might not use most of the repertoire of 20th-century fear dictators, stoking panic can still work for them.
White supremacists and neo-Nazis chant at counter-protesters after marching through the University of Virginia campus in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Aug. 11, 2017. Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
Great replacement theory—shorthand for the conspiracy theory that conjures up enemies of the nation who seek to substitute “others” for the “real people”—has become central to far-right rhetoric in many countries. That makes carefully framing any discussion of demographics all the more important. In his new book, titled The Great Experiment, the prominent political scientist Yascha Mounk echoes former U.S. President Barack Obama in labeling multiethnic democracy an “experiment,” phrasing that suggests someone is pulling the strings in the first place. In any case, Mounk is very worried that the experiment might go wrong. He suggests that humans are tribal by nature—or, as he puts it, “groupish.” Diverse countries might end up with anarchy, brutal domination by one group, or an uneasy modus vivendi, where power is divided among factions, the author argues.
---
[Funny with the republican rights "the “Great Replacement" Theory", it's always black that get killed, not the way around,"attempting to replace white Americans with non-white people through immigration, interracial marriage and eventually violence."
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=168864665
White Nationalism’s Deep American Roots
"Human Zoos: America's Forgotten History of Scientific Racism
What the Nazis “found exciting about the American model didn’t involve just eugenics,” observes James Q. Whitman, a professor at Yale Law School and the author of Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (2017). “It also involved the systematic degradation of Jim Crow, of American deprivation of basic rights of citizenship like voting.” Nazi lawyers carefully studied how the United States, despite its pretense of equal citizenship, had effectively denied that status .. http://aeon.co/ideas/why-the-nazis-studied-american-race-laws-for-inspiration .. to those who were not white. They looked at Supreme Court decisions that withheld full citizenship rights from nonwhite subjects in U.S. colonial territories. They examined cases that drew, as Thind’s had, arbitrary but hard lines around who could be considered “white.”
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152073813]
---
Quite a lot more there : https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=169607886
One last to have a drink with: Repetitious assholes drive the fear. Emphasis
on repetition. Emphasis on assholes. One near the top of the list is the USA:
restripe, Tucker Carlson!*&*&$$. No wonder you're gone. Tucker Carlson HUMILIATES Himself As Grift Unravels On-Air
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170749904
It was Plato who said, “He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing”
Discover What Traders Are Watching
Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.
